mll wrote:
1) 'Mazurka in B major, Op. 63 No. 1'
OR
2) 'Mazurka in B major, Op. 63, No. 1'
Just be aware that there's a lot of 'Mazurka in B major, Op.
63/1' around:
are they allowed? should they be changed? are they simply not
part of this rule that is only about commas?
3) 'Mazurka in B major, Op. 63/1' is another choice
But still I favour explicitly writing 'No.'. SO I still vote for 1)
So if we agree they maybe have to be changed: it was something disputed for
years.
And if we come to an agreement, should we take out the heavy gun of a
RFV? This is an addition to the rule, not a change per se.
I can't see the difference: an addition is a change.
I don't want to start a polemic, but in the spirit of things (not in
the letter), filling a hole in a rule should raise less argument than
changing an existing subpart of the rule.
Neither I, and sorry if reverting your change could seem rude. In spirit
your're right but there were lots of cases where very simple and little
clarifications, since leads to some consequences, were hardly disputed and
then nothing was done. I mean, if there's a hole often there's a reason why,
mostly because of no agreement reached.
Anyway I still think that any modification, any, of an offical rule should
pass through at least a public presentation and then a hopeful little
discussion. In this case this way is perfect or even just by a note on CSGD.
Now youv'e done it and we all agree: from my part you can edit it again and
really thanks for the care.
Ciao
MArco (ClutchEr2)
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
